 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
steve(at)newtech.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: Fuel tank service bulletin |
 |
|
Hi Peter,
I took out the comment about archiving so this will go into the
archive. I understand you being upset about tearing up your new paint
job because you don't have access plates. I don't know what model of RV
you have but on my RV-7 wings, purchased in Sept. 2001, Van's shipped
solid round access covers with my capacitance sending units. The reason
was so you could get into the tanks if you needed to. Looks like it
will be easier to comply with the SB for the current fleet of 7's and 9's.
For anyone now building, it looks like building the tanks with the
access covers would be a good idea.
Steve Eberhart
RV-7A, ready to join the tail cone and center section.
Peter Blake wrote:
| Quote: |
Here's the letter and e-mail I sent to Van.
February 27, 2006
Dear Van,
I was very surprised and disappointed on seeing your Mandatory Service
Bulletin requiring fuel tank changes. In my case, I have capacitive probes
for fuel quantity measurement, and no inspection plate to remove. Even if I
did have plates, theres less than a 2 gap between the wing skins and
fuselage of my RV6. I wont whine about tearing up very expensive paint, or
removing the wings to get at the tank, or even that this may cause an
insurance problem if I fail to do it. Instead, I question your logic and
your process of issuing this bulletin.
Im wondering why you didnt at least have a comment period so you could
gather input from the fleet, before issuing this bulletin. The FAA finds
public comment useful; Im surprised you dont as well.
I have heard of two incidents involving alleged (your term) fuel pick-up
tube problems. In one, there was plenty of warning that something was
amiss, yet the plane was flown anyway (rather than ground tested), without
determining and rectifying root cause. Even then, it seems that simply
switching tanks would have prevented the accident. In the second instance,
switching tanks would have prevented the accident as well. How many times
have we heard of fuel starvation accidents where the pilot failed to switch
tanks, even though plenty of fuel was available in the other? It seems to
me that pilot error was a major contributing factor in these accidents.
Perhaps an article on the importance of proper emergency procedures for
engine-out emergencies would have been appropriate, since that would address
prevention of such fuel starvation accidents.
Given a fleet of approximately 4500 aircraft, 2 incidents (both of which
could have been prevented by appropriate pilot action) represents an
accident rate of 0.044 %. This level of risk doesnt seem sufficient to
warrant the draconian nature of your service bulletin especially
unilaterally, without comment.
Further, it seems to me that a vanishingly small probability exists that one
tank would be dry while the fuel pick-up tube malfunctioned in the other, or
that both tubes malfunctioned at the same time. These seem to me to be the
only conditions under which an engine stoppage due to fuel pick-up tube
malfunction could not be rectified by appropriate pilot action e.g.,
switching tanks.
Many will say that you did this to protect yourself from liability a
completely understandable motive. It seems to me however, that mandating
the opening of 9000 fuel tanks by amateurs, drilling of holes in sensitive
areas, resealing etc. (and in the case of those of us with capacitance
senders and no removable end plate, creating and sealing a large hole), not
to mention the obvious danger of fire when working around aviation gasoline
and fumes, is a case of the cure being worse than the disease. It seems to
me that you expose your company to much more liability in the case of
accidents that will be construed as directly or indirectly caused by or
related to these repairs.
It seems to me that a more rational approach would be to mandate a bore
scope inspection of the fuel pick-up tubes, which could be accomplished with
minimum fuss through the fuel drain plug hole. This would identify any
problems, go a long way toward protecting you from fuel pick-up tube
liability, and avoid entirely the liability of causing 9000 fuel tanks to be
drained (and not flushed with water), opened, modified and reclosed.
I encourage you to consider all the ramifications of your actions, first and
foremost with regard to safety. Secondly, with regard to the thousands of
hours (and dollars) required for fleet compliance, and thirdly, with regard
to your reputation for pragmatism, concern for costs, and generally doing
the right thing.
Please rescind this bulletin, and issue another, more appropriate to the
actual risk-benefit relationships in this issue.
Sincerely,
Peter Blake
RV6
e-Mail: pblake(at)epix.net
Peter H. Blake, Ph.D.
PrcisTrial LLC
60 Beverly Drive
Kintnersville, PA 18930
Office +01.610.847.8478
Cell +01.215.519.4603
Fax +01.610.847.8160
e-Mail PHB(at)PrcisTrial.com
|
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jsflyrv
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:01 pm Post subject: Fuel tank service bulletin |
|
|
Steve Eberhart wrote:
| Quote: |
Hi Peter,
I took out the comment about archiving so this will go into the
archive. I understand you being upset about tearing up your new paint
job because you don't have access plates. I don't know what model of RV
you have but on my RV-7 wings, purchased in Sept. 2001, Van's shipped
solid round access covers with my capacitance sending units. The reason
was so you could get into the tanks if you needed to. Looks like it
will be easier to comply with the SB for the current fleet of 7's and 9's.
For anyone now building, it looks like building the tanks with the
access covers would be a good idea.
Steve Eberhart
RV-7A, ready to join the tail cone and center section.
Peter Blake wrote:
>
>
>Here's the letter and e-mail I sent to Van.
>
>February 27, 2006
>
>Dear Van,
>
>I was very surprised and disappointed on seeing your Mandatory Service
>Bulletin requiring fuel tank changes. In my case, I have capacitive probes
>for fuel quantity measurement, and no inspection plate to remove. Even if I
>did have plates, theres less than a 2 gap between the wing skins and
>fuselage of my RV6. I wont whine about tearing up very expensive paint, or
>removing the wings to get at the tank, or even that this may cause an
>insurance problem if I fail to do it. Instead, I question your logic and
>your process of issuing this bulletin.
>
>Im wondering why you didnt at least have a comment period so you could
>gather input from the fleet, before issuing this bulletin. The FAA finds
>public comment useful; Im surprised you dont as well.
>
>I have heard of two incidents involving alleged (your term) fuel pick-up
>tube problems. In one, there was plenty of warning that something was
>amiss, yet the plane was flown anyway (rather than ground tested), without
>determining and rectifying root cause. Even then, it seems that simply
>switching tanks would have prevented the accident. In the second instance,
>switching tanks would have prevented the accident as well. How many times
>have we heard of fuel starvation accidents where the pilot failed to switch
>tanks, even though plenty of fuel was available in the other? It seems to
>me that pilot error was a major contributing factor in these accidents.
>Perhaps an article on the importance of proper emergency procedures for
>engine-out emergencies would have been appropriate, since that would address
>prevention of such fuel starvation accidents.
>
>Given a fleet of approximately 4500 aircraft, 2 incidents (both of which
>could have been prevented by appropriate pilot action) represents an
>accident rate of 0.044 %. This level of risk doesnt seem sufficient to
>warrant the draconian nature of your service bulletin especially
>unilaterally, without comment.
>
>Further, it seems to me that a vanishingly small probability exists that one
>tank would be dry while the fuel pick-up tube malfunctioned in the other, or
>that both tubes malfunctioned at the same time. These seem to me to be the
>only conditions under which an engine stoppage due to fuel pick-up tube
>malfunction could not be rectified by appropriate pilot action e.g.,
>switching tanks.
>
>Many will say that you did this to protect yourself from liability a
>completely understandable motive. It seems to me however, that mandating
>the opening of 9000 fuel tanks by amateurs, drilling of holes in sensitive
>areas, resealing etc. (and in the case of those of us with capacitance
>senders and no removable end plate, creating and sealing a large hole), not
>to mention the obvious danger of fire when working around aviation gasoline
>and fumes, is a case of the cure being worse than the disease. It seems to
>me that you expose your company to much more liability in the case of
>accidents that will be construed as directly or indirectly caused by or
>related to these repairs.
>
>It seems to me that a more rational approach would be to mandate a bore
>scope inspection of the fuel pick-up tubes, which could be accomplished with
>minimum fuss through the fuel drain plug hole. This would identify any
>problems, go a long way toward protecting you from fuel pick-up tube
>liability, and avoid entirely the liability of causing 9000 fuel tanks to be
>drained (and not flushed with water), opened, modified and reclosed.
>
>I encourage you to consider all the ramifications of your actions, first and
>foremost with regard to safety. Secondly, with regard to the thousands of
>hours (and dollars) required for fleet compliance, and thirdly, with regard
>to your reputation for pragmatism, concern for costs, and generally doing
>the right thing.
>
>Please rescind this bulletin, and issue another, more appropriate to the
>actual risk-benefit relationships in this issue.
>
>Sincerely,
>Peter Blake
>RV6
>e-Mail: pblake(at)epix.net
>Peter H. Blake, Ph.D.
>PrcisTrial LLC
>60 Beverly Drive
>Kintnersville, PA 18930
>
>Office +01.610.847.8478
>Cell +01.215.519.4603
>Fax +01.610.847.8160
>e-Mail PHB(at)PrcisTrial.com
>
>
>
>
I don't understand why the hell you would want that in the archive...
|
REALLY DUMB AS WAS THE LETTER IMO
DO NOT ARCHIVE
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsflyrv
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:28 pm Post subject: Fuel tank service bulletin |
|
|
Duane Bentley wrote:
| Quote: |
Peter Blake - well worded letter!
I'm extremely disappointed that Van apparently did not consider any of
this first, or at least failed to inform the 4000 of us flying that he
had made this assessment and this kind of extreme action was
statistically merited.
Duane Bentley
RV6
Home: 513-777-5491
GE Aircraft Engines
Office: 513-552-6051
DO NOT ARCHIVE
It is not yours or Peters millons of dollers in investments that are
|
at risk if someone sues.
I would like the people that have had problems fess up and say if they
had threatened to sues Van's
aircraft?
Do not archive
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Cochran
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Wilsonville, OR
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:36 pm Post subject: Fuel tank service bulletin |
|
|
Peter,
Kudos! Best and most thoughtful response yet.
Jerry Cochran
From: "Peter Blake" <pblake(at)epix.net>
Subject: Fuel tank service bulletin
Here's the letter and e-mail I sent to Van.
February 27, 2006
Dear Van,
I was very surprised and disappointed on seeing your Mandatory Service
Bulletin requiring fuel tank changes. In my case, I have capacitive probes
for fuel quantity measurement, and no inspection plate to remove. Even if I
did have plates, theres less than a 2 gap between the wing skins and
fuselage of my RV6. I wont whine about tearing up very expensive paint, or
removing the wings to get at the tank, or even that this may cause an
insurance problem if I fail to do it. Instead, I question your logic and
your process of issuing this bulletin.
<SNIP>
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
